Wednesday, November 30, 2011

It came as a bit of a surprise that Anders Behring Breivik is declared insane by court-appointed shrinks. Which is rather like calling him an animal. Breivik is appropriately offended by this character assassination, which should be enough to raise serious doubts about its validiy. They deny him moral agency, and I bet it even feels like an attempted disqualification of his activism, as if it didn't count after all. There is something deeply dehumanizing about being held unaccountable for your actions. Just like a dog or insect cannot be held to moral standards because they are incapable of moral reasoning and don’t know what they are doing in any moral sense. But is it true? Is he really “psychotic,” and has been so for years during meticulous planning? A "paranoid schizophrenic"?

I had not expected this conclusion, but if he was to be declared insane, I certainly would have guessed they would claim "paranoid schizophrenia." This is the stereotypical diagnosis used when psychiatrists want someone committed whom they can't find anything specifically wrong with. It's like taken out of a book by Thomas Szasz. Watching today's events reminded me of why I don't trust psychiatrists; why I will only subject myself to examination by them over my dead body. As expected, Breivik's insistence that he is sane is simply taken as evidence that he lacks insight into his own illness. Thus any attempt to reason with them will just result in digging yourself deeper into the institutional abyss.

So what does this supposed insanity consist of? Since the full report is secret (another flaw in our system), we are only given some clues, such as "grandiose delusions." It is supposedly delusional to envision himself as a future ruler of Norway. I agree that would be unrealistic to say the least, but being overly ambitious does not have to mean you are insane. By the logic of psychiatrists like Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr must have been psychotic to run for president in 2008 with no hope of winning, only to receive 0.4% of the votes. As Breivik is not found to be hallucinating, this type of "delusion" is the sole basis for their diagnosis. Another example cited is his desire to breed Norwegians and put them in reservations, presumably for eugenic purposes. While incredibly wrong-headed and unlibertarian, this does not qualify as a delusion either, as I see it. If Breivik is delusional, then Hitler and any number of despotic megalomaniacs must be considered unaccountable due to insanity, and that's not usually how we see them. Nor does killing 77 people for what you regard as the greater good inevitably qualify as insane, or any general in any war would be insane. How many civilians got killed in Afghanistan, again?

I believe cognitive liberty needs to be a basic human right, even for the worst criminals. It is a much worse fate to lose your cognitive liberty and be forcibly poisoned by toxic chemicals than merely be incarcerated. Psychiatric treatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment equivalent to torture, in my view. So even if Breivik happens to be truly out of touch with reality, I categorically oppose sentencing him or anybody to psychiatric care. A desire to sentence him to a punishment worse than prison may have factored in, but ultimately I think the psychiatrists just couldn't help themselves, being as entrenched as they are within a framework of assuming power over individuals. In a larger sense, it points to the extreme conformism in our society. I encountered some of the same kind of bigotry at a public debate with feminists recently, where I was called delusional just for my opinions. And this was even coming from a former terrorist who was himself caught with explosives in Beirut in 1977.

I am offended by psychiatry claiming Breivik as another victim. Of course, my heart goes more out to all the victims of psychiatry who did nothing evil to deserve it. Paradoxically, the more heinous your crime, the more shielded you are from the abuses of psychiatric treatment. Peaceable patients do not have the benefit of a large public hearing before psychiatry starts messing with them. Law-abiding patients don't have the luxury of being confined to the relative safety of a regular jail while an independent commission is second-guessing their pyschiatrists. Instead they go straight to the asylum. Psychiatry rivals feminism as the worst social problem of our time. Arguably psychiatry is worse, since it violates your personal integrity rather than just imprison you. Indeed, if you are a victim of psychiatry, it is probably in your best interest (as well as a publicly beneficial act of activism) to kill a guard or cop in order to get a fair public trial and possibly escape treatment before it ruins your health completely. I have previously written laudatory posts about a man who killed a cop trying to apprehend him for forcible drugging. He turned out to be so dense as to testify in court he thought the cop was a burglar and killed him by accident, and so he blew it. The upshot in this case was just a sentence back to the asylum, just like Breivik is facing, but at least you have a shot to plead for prison rather than psychiatric abuse under a great deal of media attention if you make a criminal out of yourself rather than just another nameless victim of psychiatry. There is still a small chance Breivik can pull this off when he gets his day in court.

I would agree that if someone is so out of touch with reality that he genuinely was unaware of what he did, then it does not make sense to hold him criminally accountable. I still oppose forcible psychiatric treatment, which is always a moral travesty under any circumstances. There is simply never any justification for violating someone's cognitive liberty. A civilized, humane society would always offer at least the option of regular imprisonment to the criminally insane, upon conviction by an ordinary trial. Now if they desire psychiatric care, that is another matter, but it is unethical to force this on anybody, not least because neuroleptics have horrible side effects which shave decades off your life expectancy. I have seen my own grandfather suffer tardive dyskinesia due to psychiatric coercion, though somehow he still managed to reach old age. Now I realize iatrogenic adverse effects from somatic medicine can be just as bad, but at least you have the option to refuse treatment. Medicine should operate on the basis of informed consent, or it does not deserve to be called medicine at all.

Finally I want to condemn the Norwegian barbarity of "preventive detention" (forvaring). One upside of being declared insane is you are not actually eligible for this, but lots of criminals are. The maximum sentence for any crime is ostensibly 21 years (soon to be extended to 30 for terrorism), yet even relatively minor crimes (especially feminist sex crimes) can get you preventive detention instead, which is a potential life sentence as it can be indefinitely extended as long as you are deemed likely to commit more crimes if you are released. This is incredibly hypocritical and has no place in any fair justice system. It really makes my blood boil to lock people up for hypothetical crimes not yet committed, and if you think longer sentences than 21 years are justified, which is not a point I am arguing with here, then that should be the sentence in the first place.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Men's Rights Activists are made not born. We arise out of the hostile conditions of state-enforced feminism. Although frequently depicted as hating women, in truth we simply react to misandry. It is as simple as hate breeds hate. I trace my first memory of serious aversion to feminism back to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991. I was viscerally appalled that those accusations by Anita Hill were taken seriously as possible misconduct because I instinctively knew, even as a young teenager, that what they called "sexual harassment" is just normal male sexuality and a society which criminalizes it is a sick, revolting society. I still don't understand how American men -- or men anywhere -- can be such milquetoasts as to tolerate sexual harassment policies, let alone internalize them as valid and desirable rules to govern their behavior every working second and empower and enrich women at their pathetic emasculating expense. To me it is absolutely astonishing that any man can even take the concept of sexual harassment seriously and, when accused, defend himself within the framework of the law and claim he didn't do it rather than attack the systemic injustice of instituting sexual harassment policy in the first place, which is the notion that women are discriminated against if they have to encounter sexual references or quid pro quo advances in the workplace, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also brought into the academy by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A man would have to be an utter moron to go along with this charade and accommodate women on these terms. It is made even more preposterous by the concept of sexual harassment policy now being detached from its historical origins as an innovative feminist tool to empower women over men and presented as the natural order of things. Gullible fools are even made to believe it's now a gender-neutral concept and that men can also be victims, so as to construct a red herring against the reality that sexual harassment policy is all about oppressing men.

However, my most formative moment as a fledgling MRA occurred during freshman orientation at Austin Peay State University in 1998. This was my first close encounter with a dystopian vision of the feminist police state turned into brutal reality. The first week for incoming students at any American college is notorious for the hatred heaped on men, which once again this year escalated to new levels, studiously obliterating any vestige of due process for males to defend themselves against ridiculous accusations. But even in 1998, I was met with a concerted week-long display of hateful feminist propaganda, all carefully choreographed to impress upon male students the threat of accusations of rape and sexual harassment at all times. Through lectures, dramatizations, leaflets, posters, T-shirts and so on, we were barraged with incessant propaganda that male sexuality equals rape and/or sexual harassment, and how eagerly accusations are awaited from any female offended by as much as an unwelcome desirous glance from a male, which professional feminists will then zealously prosecute to the full extent possible. There are even mandatory signs permanently displayed in every building urging women to report sexual harassment. My most germane memory is a lecture by some woman who was a professor of sociology. I am not even sure if she identified as a feminist. Her enthusiasm for feminist sex law was tempered by having a college-aged son herself. The resulting cognitive dissonance was funny to behold, as she understood how all this extravagant legal protection for women could just as easily screw her son. She pointed out that the law puts tremendous pressure on males, who bear the full responsibility for any sexual encounter. I vividly remember her explaining to us that in Tennessee, intoxicated women are not legally able to consent to sex. She said the woman does not even have to be visibly drunk, and the man does not even have to be aware that she has been drinking. One girl raised her hand and asked if that meant if she had sex after drinking and then felt bad about it the next day for whatever reason, she could simply decide that it was rape. "Yes," she was told, and I could see the smug look of power in her face. I was livid. That was the moment I completely realized I belong to the shit gender. I forthwith fathomed the full abysmal depth of the institutionalized worthlessness of men, how it extends to women wielding the brutal violence of the institutions to lock men up for many years based on the most minuscule of contrived insults, even when they are entirely and admittedly based on regret for consensual acts. I realized that by that definition, I would be a rapist myself and my staying out of jail would depend on women not bothering to report me. After all, alcohol is involved more often than not in the college hookup culture. And I realized that our society is perfectly OK with treating men this way; that this kind of perverse female empowerment is wholly intended by legislators and happily enforced by the police. In short, as considerations of fairness are irrelevant to males because we are so worthless, and the slightest sexual insult against a female is considered weightier than a man's life, sheer violence is our only recourse one way or the other.

We were then told that in order to avoid rape accusations, men should ask women at every step if they wanted it and never do anything unless we get a clear affirmative answer. Which, of course, qualifies as sexual harassment. If we ask for sex, we are harassers, and if we get it, we are rapists. Women have every aspect of male attention covered form the first glance to possible regrets many years after sex. At any stage can they turn around and bring the full force of state violence to bear against the man.

The intended outcome of freshman orientation is to produce a docile mangina. But it didn't work on me. All that hateful propaganda instead sparked hatred in return and sowed the seeds of activism. Rather than cowering in fear of the police, I assumed a warrior mentality and started hating law enforcement. I really, really wanted to hurt those responsible for enacting and enforcing feminist sex law. I did not let feminism influence my personal sex life, but I paid close attention to feminist legal reforms. I watched disgustedly from a distance as radical feminists remolded Norwegian rape law to their hearts' content in 2000, abolishing mens rea and lowering the threshold of force/threat from serious violence to any threatening behavior whatsoever, no matter how slight and including otherwise perfectly legal stuff like ending a relationship if you don't get sex; and sex with females deemed unable to resist due to intoxication, sleep or unconsciousness was also from then on redefined as rape. This reform has predictably opened the floodgates of frivolous accusations against men. The number of women alleging rape to the police has doubled in a decade, yet the official propaganda that not enough women are reporting rape continues unabated. As rape law is limitless but convictions are lagging, today's feminist efforts are centered on eroding due process and ultimately removing the jury, as well as strengthening the police and escalating sentencing. So far the feminist state has been met with negligible resistance -- with one major exception -- and they relentlessly keep pushing for more reforms against men. It probably has to get much worse before it gets better. Sometimes it seems like there is literally no limit to the draconian laws against male sexuality that men will put up with. I can only conclude that most men are remarkably nonviolent, but I am not like most men.

Nevertheless, my own activism all these years has remained fairly innocuous so far, but that's not for lack of affect. Angered by billboards funded by the Clarksville Police Department saying "NO MEANS NO," I painted "VIS GRATA PUELLIS" atop my mortarboard at graduation in 2002. I thought I might get arrested, but nothing happened. I also want to award an honorable mention to Angry Harry, the first MRA I encountered, and whom I've been reading for at least ten years. While nothing can beat college in producing belligerent men, I also owe a great part of my antifeminist awareness to old codger AH, who really opened my eyes to the scope of feminist debasement of our society and convinced me that there will be a time of reckoning for the leftists.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Suppose you hire an au pair while making it clear that she is expected to provide sex as part of the deal, which the woman accepts. A perfectly fair exchange, right? I would naturally expect sex from an au pair myself or I wouldn't hire her, and if she agrees, no reasonable person could object. Unfortunately, we live in a sick society with unbridled feminist power. In the feminist police state of Norway, this is now criminalized as "trafficking." A man and his wife are now on trial for this exact scenario, and it really makes my blood boil with renewed hatred. Just when you thought we had reached the high-water mark, feminism keeps escalating and inventing new ways of persecuting male sexuality. The feminist police state is on a relentless march towards criminalizing ever greater areas of male sexuality -- or in this case, applying existing laws in innovative ways in order to imprison more men. To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men's Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate -- that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists.

The feminist charade of "trafficking" is such a blatant travesty that I scarcely bother writing about it. Only the most gullible fools take the official propaganda at face value anymore, and besides, there are other activists at work diligently exposing the mendacity of the rescue industry more eloquently than I can, most notably The Naked Anthropologist. But I must mention one more example. There is a Gypsy family being prosecuted for "trafficking" in my home town right now. Their crime is simply to carry on their usual lifestyle, which is now defined as trafficking and sexual abuse. One woman is considered a victim of trafficking and sexual abuse by her husband because she at 15 is below the local age of consent, even though they are married according to their own customs. She is trying to get her husband out of jail, but the feminist police state insists on prosecuting. If just a tiny part of all the supposed sex slavery you hear about were true, it's funny that they have to pick a normal family going about their traditional ways to prosecute. I can only conclude that the entire rescue industry is full of shit. Where are the supposed millions of sex slaves in chains, eh? The man in this case is 20 and he is being imprisoned for having relations with his wife who is 15. They were legally married in a place where this is perfectly normal, then made the mistake of traveling to a progressive society. The feminist police state of Norway is a very hateful place indeed for men and will prosecute even when it hurts the "victim" too. Simply crossing the border is "trafficking" and their marriage is now defined as sexual abuse because we are so progressive. I for one do not accept this. I do not want to live in a society so full of hate, and that is why I am a men's rights activist.

These are just two examples going on right now in this feminist police state. We also have a fresh high-profile rape accusation well suited to expose the feminist definition of rape. The women of Norway now wield a shameless reign of terror over men, with unlimited access to feminist police power at their behest for the slightest sexual regret. However, there is a silver lining. Norway by now also has the strongest antifeminist resistance movement in the world, with seventy-seven dead feminists to show this year alone. 2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn't enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

“Rape” has in my lifetime degenerated from a crime encompassing only the most severe kinds of sexual coercion, to no coercion at all. This profound expansion of the legal concept of rape must reasonably and perhaps inevitably occasion an equally profound reassessment of the sympathy we afford victims of “rape.” This reevaluation of victimhood due to rape is lagging, I presume, only because the feminist-corrupted definition has yet to sink in with most people. The public scrutiny of rape law generated by the accusations and extradition process surrounding Julian Assange is therefore a welcome contribution to the Men’s Rights Movement. While I sympathize with Assange’s predicament, one could scarcely hope for a better exposition of feminist rape law reform. The rape accusations levied against him by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and the feminist state of Sweden are so patently absurd that you do not have to be an MRA to realize this is a frivolous witch-hunt even if he is guilty as charged. Some bare modicum of sanity will suffice. Today we have it from the horse’s mouth that the definition of rape hounding Julian Assange is institutionalized and entrenched throughout European justice, not just in Sweden. So if you support Assange and also believe the law should apply equally to all men, then you must agree that there is something seriously wrong with current rape law, as reformed by feminists.

It is my pleasure to cite the full text of the latest judgment, which at great length explains that rape law as applied in this case is par for the course in England and all over Europe. In England and Wales, the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 established rape as intentional penetration of a vagina without consent, and consent is defined as agreeing by choice with the freedom and capacity to make the choice. English rape law is thus at least as extreme as the Swedish version (where coercion is apparently still part of the definition), which means the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied and Assange is to be extradited.

Court cases are often decided more by a climate of opinion rather than the wording of the law itself. The hateful wave of radical feminism sweeping Europe is so powerful, it overrides the varying local definitions and has men uniformly tried and convicted based on the radical feminist definition of rape. Norway, for example, is more extreme than the norm insofar as mens rea is abolished, but we still technically define rape as sex accomplished by some manner of force or coercion, (though this can be as light as e.g. threatening to spread a rumor about a woman), unless the woman is unconscious or otherwise unable to resist. Even so, the Assange judgment asserts that feminism is so impetuous, the trend is to bring charges against men based on feminist ideology even when the law is insufficient. This explains the logical incoherence of defining rape as sex obtained by force/threat yet not requiring resistance from the woman, which is done here in Norway. We might as well ignore the letter of the law and acknowledge the fact that feminist ideology is so pervasive it trumps everything. Fighting feminist law reform with attempted reversal of that reform is thus a futile endeavor, and MRAs must instead mount a resistance external to legislation. An overarching purpose of the feminist police states of Europe is explicitly to “tackle attrition” in rape accusations by whatever means necessary, the law or innocence be damned, and based on an absurd de facto definition of rape by which the essential element is simply lack of consent.

So there you have it. Those who still equate rape with actually being forced to sex, wake up and smell the odious feminist cunt commanding your local police force. Based on this definition of rape, what to think of the “victims” is self-explanatory. Women cannot have their panacean definition of rape and sympathy at the same time. Something has to break. However, even if we arrive at the point where “rape victims” receive nothing but ridicule from the general public (much like Anna and Sofia are getting at the moment), the feminist police state will grind on and destroy innocent men’s lives. As the definition of rape has been expanded to absurdity, sentencing for convicted rapists has perversely increased at the same time, and due process is also constantly besieged. To MRAs this can only mean war.

I look forward to the next chapter in the Assange saga, which will expose more human-rights abuses in the sick joke that is the Swedish justice system. It shall be especially satisfying to have the Swedish travesty of conducting rape trials in secret exposed to the world, because no matter what definition of rape you subscribe to, such a fundamental denial of due process is universally appalling to civilized people.